Challenges With Demisexuality

[exchemist]

That's true. It really isn't a negative thing, or a deficiency...

If anything, I feel its made the sexual experiences I have had all the richer.

Interesting that you see it that way. It sounds -ve to me, but then I am not one of those people myself.

 

[crossfire]

The term demisexuality classifies the person as only half sexual. That’s what “demi” means, after all. I would be pretty annoyed to be classed in that way, as if something was missing.

What makes me uneasy above all is that I suspect this is normal for a lot of women and that this terminology may be another instance of women being judged , from an essentially male viewpoint, for not behaving just like a man. Which in my experience often women do not. Men are famously driven by looks. Women are often not, or not in the same simplistic way.

I find myself sharing the distaste of others on this thread about the urge to overclassify sexual behaviour and then to attach what seem to me rather facile labels to people, pigeonholing them.

I would see the classification as a positive. It would make sense from a natural selection survival mechanism and the formation of the family unit and lead more towards the favoring of K-select systems over R-select systems. Quality over quantity is a good thing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've learned a lot in my time on the forums(some lessons more valuable than others). One thing that stuck out for me was there's a term for people like me... demi-sexual!

I found it interesting, though overall not very important for me now. I'm married, and am not seeking more. But I wonder how this identification could have helped me when I was looking...

I honestly have spent little time single since my teenaged years(some think that's a shame, I don't). But, there was a period of time in which I was in my late 20s... and the dating world seemed terrifying. It seemed the norm(for this place and age group), meet up, hook up, decide if you liked them. And I could. not. do. that. The idea of casual sex turned my stomach. I was told I needed to relax my 'ideals', or I'd remain single.

I didn't. I found my husband long distance(over the phone), and formed a relationship with him before we even met. (And that's what had happened with the guy I'd been with before him; I'd met him online and formed a strong bond before we ever physically met.)

But I wonder, if I'd had that word to articulate what I felt(or didn't feel), if I'd have been able to navigate life better. And I wonder if that option makes it easier for people now.

What do you think? Do you think being able to label one's sexuality in such a manner has improved(or hindered) the romantic experience?

I think whether certain labels are helpful or not depends on the person. Some people have been able to describe exactly what their patterns of attraction are like before encountering specific terms like "demisexual," "asexual," etc., but for many others, the terms are not only helpful to them for self-exploration but also, by becoming more commonplace and known about by other people, help them to be understood by others who may otherwise have not been aware that sexuality is a highly diverse and complex spectrum.

Personally, I don't become truly attracted to someone without first knowing them well, and I have zero interest in hookups or casual sex due to a variety of concerns about health, commitment, and discipline (for myself, not for others; I generally have no interest in judging other adults' consensual sexual decisions). I wouldn't describe myself as "demisexual," however, because I don't find that the term serves any purpose I can't already fulfill without it. I understand that it is useful for many other people, though, which is great. I think it's good when people find that something about themselves that wasn't widely understood before has started to be, or has become, more widely understood.

 

[osgart]

So like loyalty to one partner is abnormal now. Lolol.

Romance, and passion don't exist. Satisfy the meat. Lol.

I

 

[exchemist]

I would see the classification as a positive. It would make sense from a natural selection survival mechanism and the formation of the family unit and lead more towards the favoring of K-select systems over R-select systems. Quality over quantity is a good thing.

Oh sure, since human beings are the archetypal K-select species (only one offspring per conception event, 9 month gestation, years of parental care, etc.) the mate selection strategy - to reduce it for a moment to mere biology - that I outlined makes excellent biological sense.

The odd thing to my mind, then, is that in spite of that it is felt to need a label - and moreover a label that describes such people as lacking something.

(I now await the feeding frenzy of outrage from some of our American friends when they come on-line later today. Crash helmets on! )

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh sure, since human beings are the archetypal K-select species (only one offspring per conception event, 9 month gestation, years of parental care, etc.) the mate selection strategy - to reduce it for a moment to mere biology - that I outlined makes excellent biological sense.

The odd thing to my mind, then, is that in spite of that it is felt to need a label - and moreover a label that describes such people as lacking something.

I think the label is highly centered around Western norms, which is not to say that it can't be helpful to many people; just that its context is limited if we zoom out and consider a more global perspective.

The majority of people in my culture, and also many people in other Eastern cultures, don't engage in casual sex or sleep with anyone they don't know well beforehand. Against this backdrop, a specific label might instead be needed to describe being sexually attracted to someone one did not know well, since that would be an uncommon phenomenon. Perhaps "tachysexual," describing "being quickly attracted to someone sexually without first bonding with them"?

But yeah, there are other examples from psychology of descriptions, research, or terms that are mainly applicable to certain cultures and less applicable to others.

 

[crossfire]

Oh sure, since human beings are the archetypal K-select species (only one offspring per conception event, 9 month gestation, years of parental care, etc.) the mate selection strategy - to reduce it for a moment to mere biology - that I outlined makes excellent biological sense.

The odd thing to my mind, then, is that in spite of that it is felt to need a label - and moreover a label that describes such people as lacking something.

(I now await the feeding frenzy of outrage from some of our American friends when they come on-line later today. Crash helmets on! )

Why would it be lacking something? The only thing I see as lacking here is being enslaved by lust.

 

[exchemist]

I think the label is highly centered around Western norms, which is not to say that it can't be helpful to many people; just that its context is limited if we zoom out and consider a more global perspective.

The majority of people in my culture, and also many people in other Eastern cultures, don't engage in casual sex or sleep with anyone they don't know well beforehand. Against this backdrop, a specific label might instead be needed to describe being sexually attracted to someone one did not know well, since that would be an uncommon phenomenon. Perhaps "tachysexual," describing "being quickly attracted to someone sexually without first bonding with them"?

But yeah, there are other examples from psychology of descriptions, research, or terms that are mainly applicable to certain cultures and less applicable to others.

Indeed, I tend to suspect the term may be rather the product of a particular recent culture in parts of the Western world. But I suppose we both need to be careful to distinguish culturally normal behaviour from underlying sexual drives. These terms are supposed to get at the latter rather than the former. For instance it's perfectly possible there are plenty of muslim women in Egypt who feel strong, instant sexual attraction to certain men, even though they may not show it because of the culture. (I felt that from one girl I often used to see at the Jopetrol office, when I used to visit Jordan back in the 80s, I remember.)

 

[exchemist]

Why would it be lacking something? The only thing I see as lacking here is being enslaved by lust.

Demi means half.

 

[Secret Chief]

reassuring her she is not that unusual.

 

[crossfire]

Demi means half.

Yes, half as prone to addiction to lust.

 

[Revoltingest]

Huh.
So this thread isn't about Demi Moore.

 

[Bthoth]

Maybe I was mistaken, but it seemed to me that you were implying that asexuality was a choice

Human beings have the ability of choice. That's the beauty of being conscious.

To answer your first point, that's not quite how it works; at least not in my case. People turn away from drugs because they are attracted to them in the first place. The difference is that I feel no attraction. Like, at all. One can't turn away from drugs if they aren't enticed to even be tempted by them. To that person, drugs are a non-issue

OK. The choice still exists

Eh, I'm not interested in "baiting," but I will not shy away from asking tough questions if I feel there is more information to be gained. The fact you compared sexuality to choice indicated to me that you may feel the same way about asexuality. Was I wrong?

I do not have the perspective that people cannot choose.

The scope? I'm confused by what you mean by this; maybe you can unpack what you mean by "the scope" for me

perspective. I do not have a perspective that people do not have a choice.

I agree. And I answered



Ok



...after she asked specifically about my sexuality. I think she could tell something was different about me, which is why I think she brought it up

Different, unique, a stand out.............. Exactly why she brought it up.

Not quite



Ok



Look, If you don't like LGBT terminology, I'm not quite sure why you are commenting on a thread about demisexuality. I mean, you can, but meh; what's the point?

LBGT does not own the sexuality topics......... And NO you cannot force compliance. That's the funny part of your demeanor.

 

[Soandso]

Human beings have the ability of choice. That's the beauty of being conscious.

OK. The choice still exists

I do not have the perspective that people cannot choose.

perspective. I do not have a perspective that people do not have a choice.

Hmmm... Let's say someone is hungry. They can choose to eat or not. Let's say someone isn't hungry. They can still choose to eat or not. The choice is there, but beneath the choice is the initial feeling of hunger. Is the feeling of hunger a choice or not, because what I'm talking about is the primal feeling itself

People who are asexual have no feeling of attraction, or very little. They can choose to engage in relationships or not. The choice is there, but beneath that is the initial feeling of attraction

Now, you can choose to believe that stuff or not, but what folks are referring to is the initial feeling they experience when people talk about it, not the act of abstaining or not

Different, unique, a stand out.............. Exactly why she brought it up.

LBGT does not own the sexuality topics......... And NO you cannot force compliance. That's the funny part of your demeanor.

Ok

 

[JustGeorge]

The term demisexuality classifies the person as only half sexual. That’s what “demi” means, after all. I would be pretty annoyed to be classed in that way, as if something was missing.

What makes me uneasy above all is that I suspect this is normal for a lot of women and that this terminology may be another instance of women being judged , from an essentially male viewpoint, for not behaving just like a man. Which in my experience often women do not. Men are famously driven by looks. Women are often not, or not in the same simplistic way.

I find myself sharing the distaste of others on this thread about the urge to overclassify sexual behaviour and then to attach what seem to me rather facile labels to people, pigeonholing them.

You might find it interesting that I received harsher judgement from female peers on this topic than male ones(excluding those males that were attempting to pursue me).

 

[Soandso]

The term demisexuality classifies the person as only half sexual. That’s what “demi” means, after all. I would be pretty annoyed to be classed in that way, as if something was missing.

Nothing is missing. Let me explain how I experience this

I have no sexual attraction towards anyone. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't date anyone or can't enjoy sex, because I can do those things, but the feeling of sexual attraction itself doesn't exist - not until I'm well into a relationship. Sometimes I've had it take me almost a year before those feelings started to manifest themselves. The first time this happened with me, it did take me by surprise

What makes me uneasy above all is that I suspect this is normal for a lot of women and that this terminology may be another instance of women being judged , from an essentially male viewpoint, for not behaving just like a man. Which in my experience often women do not. Men are famously driven by looks. Women are often not, or not in the same simplistic way.

No one who is asexual talks about it in the open because, specifically, when we do we get awkward conversations like the ones that have been happening in this thread. Not fun to have with people face to face, especially when it effects their opinions of you

No one is pressuring anyone. These are the cards we hold to our chests that folks don't ever have to see

I find myself sharing the distaste of others on this thread about the urge to overclassify sexual behaviour and then to attach what seem to me rather facile labels to people, pigeonholing them.

I mean, that's fair. Honestly not a lot of research has been done on the matter. People still have life experiences, though, and not all of them are the same. When folks compare their notes and realize something is up, this is what you get - at least until more research is done

 

[wellwisher]

I've learned a lot in my time on the forums(some lessons more valuable than others). One thing that stuck out for me was there's a term for people like me... demi-sexual!

I found it interesting, though overall not very important for me now. I'm married, and am not seeking more. But I wonder how this identification could have helped me when I was looking...

I honestly have spent little time single since my teenaged years(some think that's a shame, I don't). But, there was a period of time in which I was in my late 20s... and the dating world seemed terrifying. It seemed the norm(for this place and age group), meet up, hook up, decide if you liked them. And I could. not. do. that. The idea of casual sex turned my stomach. I was told I needed to relax my 'ideals', or I'd remain single.

I didn't. I found my husband long distance(over the phone), and formed a relationship with him before we even met. (And that's what had happened with the guy I'd been with before him; I'd met him online and formed a strong bond before we ever physically met.)

But I wonder, if I'd had that word to articulate what I felt(or didn't feel), if I'd have been able to navigate life better. And I wonder if that option makes it easier for people now.

What do you think? Do you think being able to label one's sexuality in such a manner has improved(or hindered) the romantic experience?

I never heard the term Demi-sexuality but it boils down to love before sex.

In my experience, this approach can lead to unconscious mind dynamics, where the unconscious firmware of the man and woman will cross program each other, leading to entangled firmware. Marriage used to occur first, before these dynamics. One was celibate before marriage, to build the love and trust, before the sex trigger, after the wedding. This process can last a lifetime, and changes with the stages of life; permanent entangled bond.

Sex before love can still trigger the same firmware dynamics, but this path is more likely to add bugs. Some people will have sex and fall in love, marry, and then divorce due to the bugs not allowing the correct entanglement. it is also not uncommon for the firmware to become more active, in one person, more than in the other, so they cannot get a valid entanglement. This can also leave the stronger connection running, for some time, even after they part; unfulfilled love and future baggage.

Developing love first helps the couples coordinate the preliminary processes, so they are on the same page, when things start to get more intense; entangled particles coordinate in time yet in their own space; body.

My best experience was when I was collecting unconscious mind data. The dynamics were trigger due to sex before love but as love grew. I was the source of the bugs, since I was treating this more as a scientist, collecting data, and not allowing myself to fully flow with it.

A few months ago, I wrote about thought dimensionality theory, and this bonding process allows you to experience 3+-D thoughts with a time element.

 

[Father Heathen]

So like loyalty to one partner is abnormal now. Lolol.

Romance, and passion don't exist. Satisfy the meat. Lol.

I

Oh, ffs... Nobody is saying this, so what on earth are you gibbering about?

 

[Father Heathen]

I never heard the term Demi-sexuality but it boils down to love before sex.

In my experience, this approach can lead to unconscious mind dynamics, where the unconscious firmware of the man and woman will cross program each other, leading to entangled firmware. Marriage used to occur first, before these dynamics. One was celibate before marriage, to build the love and trust, before the sex trigger, after the wedding. This process can last a lifetime, and changes with the stages of life; permanent entangled bond.

Sex before love can still trigger the same firmware dynamics, but this path is more likely to add bugs. Some people will have sex and fall in love, marry, and then divorce due to the bugs not allowing the correct entanglement. it is also not uncommon for the firmware to become more active, in one person, more than in the other, so they cannot get a valid entanglement. This can also leave the stronger connection running, for some time, even after they part; unfulfilled love and future baggage.

Developing love first helps the couples coordinate the preliminary processes, so they are on the same page, when things start to get more intense; entangled particles coordinate in time yet in their own space; body.

My best experience was when I was collecting unconscious mind data. The dynamics were trigger due to sex before love but as love grew. I was the source of the bugs, since I was treating this more as a scientist, collecting data, and not allowing myself to fully flow with it.

A few months ago, I wrote about thought dimensionality theory, and this bonding process allows you to experience 3+-D thoughts with a time element.

This is like the time cube of sexuality.

 

[exchemist]

You might find it interesting that I received harsher judgement from female peers on this topic than male ones(excluding those males that were attempting to pursue me).

Hmm, so much for the sisterhood then.